There are several problems with this evidential claim, but I would like to focus on just two of them. First, the claim relies on an unproven premise. The premise is that the pentadactyl pattern is, at least in some cases, not an optimal or efficient design. The reasoning here is intuitive. It shows up for different functions, and it seems unlikely that one design can be the best for such different functions (digging, flying, grasping, etc.). That is all well and good, but we do not know this to be true.

Darwin made the claim a century and a half ago with nothing to back him up but intuition, and today nothing has changed. Take one look at the different pentadactyl designs (eg, in the horse and bat) and one can see it comes in very different shapes and sizes, and seems to function OK. Who knows, perhaps it is efficient. Perhaps the extent of structural similarity which we observe (which often isn't very much) makes sense for the given functional diversity. So this popular and important evidential claim entails a premise that is not known to be true. It may seem puzzling to us, but perhaps we should not throw up our hands and give up. It is certainly a very interesting observation, but hardly supports the claim that this is powerful evidence.

A second problem is that the claim is not scientific. Regardless of whether or not homologies such as the pentadactyl pattern are inefficient, this claim entails an "ought" premise. That is, the argument entails a premise about what biological designs ought to be like. This is metaphysical, and it makes the evidential claim impenetrable and outside of science, for one cannot use science to address opinions about what ought to be. One cannot argue against the metaphysical beliefs of evolutionists.

There do seem to be features in organisms that, when we look at them, we think, "wow, even I could have designed that better", so we do make some intuitive arguments along these lines. The recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffes is a good example here.

However, there is much more substance and depth to these sorts of arguments than CH admits. First, we know that better designs are possible because they exist in other organisms. Giraffe necks are made out of the same seven neck vertebrae that we have, but this is only a constraint due to evolutionary history: hummingbirds (not being mammals) have 14 neck verterbrae. In a world that contains squirrels and monkeys, you don’t have to be either a genius or a metaphysical philosopher to realize that tree kangaroos are not the epitome of adaptation to life in trees. There are many similar examples, although few are quite so comical. This is an evidence-based conclusion.

Secondly, claims about ‘what biological designs ought to be like’ only get made in the most obvious of cases (like the giraffe's nerve, above). The argument tends not to be how wings ought to work for birds or for bats, nor whether the basic tetrapod forelimb and its modifications work better for bats or for birds, but that all birds possess one version of the basic tetrapod forelimb, whereas all bats possess a different version. The easiest explanation, given substantial overlaps in function between bird wings and bat wings, is that one set of solutions happened in some ancestral bird and has been inherited by all subsequent birds, whereas a different set of solutions happened in some bat ancestor and has since been inherited by all bats. Similarly, but at another level, the commonalities in all tetrapod limbs are best explained by common inheritance. If we go into subgroups of birds, we see additional patterns of shared similarities within groups and differences between groups. As we get into finer and finer taxonomic levels, we are increasingly likely to run into difficulties with convergence. However, CH initially claimed that convergence is a big problem at high taxonomic levels (as between thylacines and wolves), when it is not so much, and that biologists ignore convergence, when they study it with great care and considerable interest.

(edited to change "vertebrate" to "tetrapod", in order to exclude fish from the discussion.)

“However we evolved, we’re here. What we evolved from we will never figure out,” Williams said. “There are many people who are absolutely convinced God did all of this and if you have the faith I have, God did it all.”

....yeah .......yeah I know that seems a nonsequitur to you.

All you are worried about is how god decided to let his designs seem to appear evolved rather than plain outright easily identifiable as designed like a Ford or GM car.

Instantly recognizable as pointing to a designer.... clear as day because the design is clearly separate from the object as determined by your neurons.

What you want to say is..."look at these two wolves god decided he needed a wolf so he made a wolf 'design 'and then let evolution fill in the gaps."

Now since you can read the mind of god all you have to do is say to anyone who will listen to the 'trvth'….” the very fact that we have a wolf design independent of evolution; that itself is evidence for the designer.”

Oh it's all so clear now.....yawn ...pathetic.

Lenny's questions? Any progress?

--------------The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

Mike PSS writes: First, the evolutionary claim is made that pentadactyl pattern found within mammals is the result of common descent. You do know that this means the common ancestor of mammals had pentadactyl pattern limbs. And that this trait is carried by ALL mammals.

No, it need not be carried by all mammals.

Ummmm...Common Descent = Nested HierarchyALL mammals (extant and extinct) exhibit the pentadactyl limb pattern.Please find me one example where a mammal (extant or extinct) doesn't have pentadactyl limbs or limb precursors.If you want to discuss nested hierarchies then I'll probably have to channel Zachrial to this thread as he has numerous recent posts trying to explain this subject to a JoeG (over on the UD thread).

Quote

Quote

Mike PSS writes: Second, the evolutionary claim is made that the morphological similarities between thylacine and wolves are developmental in nature because of similar environmental influences during each evolutionary event. You do know that this means that an environmental niche was "available" for evolution to "fill" by RM+NS+time (+other factors) and that the "available" niche was duplicate at seperate and isolated geographic locations. And that the resident species "eligible" to fill this niche within these geographic locations were different.

I dispute your analogy here because without further explanation about how pentadactyl limb development is comparable to thylacine/wolf morphological development. You need to show either...How did available environmental niche influence the development of pentadactyl limbs.ORWhat genetic similarities were developed between thylacine and wolf as a result of environmental nich development.

The problem here is that you are placing the burden of disproof on me when you are making the evidential claim.

My questions are NOT burden of proof questions. The questions are based on sound logic so that your argumentary claims can be logically LINKED to one another. Without some type of answer (notice that you only have to answer one of them) then you don't have a linked comparative argument. You just have two seperate observations that result in seperate answers. There is NO claim you can make by comparing the two observations without some logical (NOTE: NOT EVIDENTIAL BUT LOGICAL) underpinnings to your statements.

Quote

I'm merely asking how those similarities, that happen to fit the evolutionary pattern, are supposed to count as powerful evidence. Of course evolution has an explanation, as you outlined above.

So you agree that my answers count as powerful evidence?If you don't agree then you have to answer one of my questions to logically link the statements.

Quote

The answer to my question, according to standard evolutionary theory is, as Theobald concisely put it: "In one case we have structural similarity that has a functional explanation (wolves). In the other case, we have the much more puzzling phenomenon of structural similarity in spite of functional diversity (pentadactyl limbs)."

In other words, for homologies such as the pentadactyl pattern, there doesn't seem to be a good reason why the same design would be used for different functions. This is puzzling for evolutionists.

I beg to differ with your conclusion here based on Theobold's quote. You better parse or reference Theobold a little bit better to fit your conclusion you just made. In fact I think the next paragraph you quoted (but didn't include) from the Theobold paper actually gives Theobold's answer to his "puzzling" statement. Context in quoted phrases is important.

Maybe in your world view there has to be a "reason" associated with the use of similar design. However, as the answers I gave above indicate there is NO puzzle to the functional dissimilarity of the pentadactyl homology in mammals.

Quote

There are several problems with this evidential claim, but I would like to focus on just two of them. First, the claim relies on an unproven premise. The premise is that the pentadactyl pattern is, at least in some cases, not an optimal or efficient design. The reasoning here is intuitive. It shows up for different functions, and it seems unlikely that one design can be the best for such different functions (digging, flying, grasping, etc.). That is all well and good, but we do not know this to be true.

First, no one but IDists seem to claim "optimum or efficient design". I know I don't in my answer (nor does Theobold). The only evolutionary claim made is that the pattern need only have enough function to support the organism. This function, over time, may be "optimized" where version 2 (being a slight modification of version 1 due to evolutinary mechanisms) is better adapted to the function when compared to version 1. However this is not "optimum design" nor does it have to be "efficient design". There is no "best design" in the evolutionary pentadactyl pattern, only usefull function.

Quote

Darwin made the claim a century and a half ago with nothing to back him up but intuition, and today nothing has changed. Take one look at the different pentadactyl designs (eg, in the horse and bat) and one can see it comes in very different shapes and sizes, and seems to function OK. Who knows, perhaps it is efficient. Perhaps the extent of structural similarity which we observe (which often isn't very much) makes sense for the given functional diversity. So this popular and important evidential claim entails a premise that is not known to be true. It may seem puzzling to us, but perhaps we should not throw up our hands and give up. It is certainly a very interesting observation, but hardly supports the claim that this is powerful evidence.

And this is a strawman argument that you tried to create by claiming that pentadactyl limbs need to have "optimal or efficient design".

I'm blowing your straw down and you should look at my counter-point to your "optimal or efficient design" claim above and answer this first before making any conclusions based upon your "optimal or efficient design" claim.

Quote

A second problem is that the claim is not scientific. Regardless of whether or not homologies such as the pentadactyl pattern are inefficient, this claim entails an "ought" premise. That is, the argument entails a premise about what biological designs ought to be like. This is metaphysical, and it makes the evidential claim impenetrable and outside of science, for one cannot use science to address opinions about what ought to be. One cannot argue against the metaphysical beliefs of evolutionists.

I don't see how your making this metaconclusion from the evolutionary claim for pentadactyl limbs (common descent). Please explain in some more detail how saying "common descent" as an answer can lead you to believe there is some "ought premise" put forward. I'm confused with this response.

Among us, we seem to have sliced, diced, shredded, and decimated this guy's "claims." To the point of duplication, in some instances (but that's okay--duplication's a covert metaphor for how "bigger" changes can occur, not to mention that--on the level of discourse--making much the same point from different angles or with different words or examples may benefit someone out there...).

Odd though that Corny is just sitting back, allowing the shredding to proceed without even token opposition.

'Fraid? "Busy"?

Lurkers should note this common IDiot behavior pattern: they seem to have plenty of time to waltz onto the stage making bold claims, and to hang in there for one or two rounds of shredding, but then they can't seem to find the time to "stay the course" when the going gets tough, or to respond with evidence, specific answers to pointed questions, little things like that...

Time is of course a precious commodity. If only these chaps would give some thought to that rather obvious fact of life before they first opened their yaps.

Among us, we seem to have sliced, diced, shredded, and decimated this guy's "claims." To the point of duplication, in some instances (but that's okay--duplication's a covert metaphor for how "bigger" changes can occur, not to mention that--on the level of discourse--making much the same point from different angles or with different words or examples may benefit someone out there...).

Has Dr. Hunter ever clarified his views on what homoplasy implies for common descent? Or does he think the term "homoplasy" is circular?

I don't know anything about his views outside this thread. I hope he hasn't abandoned this board.

Deadman wrote: Uh, if anyone is skilled and can translate Mr. Hunter's statements from vague jargonese into clear english, post a version of it, please?

Quote

You and many others have repeatedly argued against falsification.

Uh, how? Can you repost where I did this?

Sure, in an earlier post you wrote:

Quote

If you want to say " but this is merely subjective" uh...okay. Gosh, Waterloo!

That's a sarcastic way of saying "you've not falsified my position." If you agree that the claim that homologies are powerful evidence for evolution is subjective, then we're on the same page.

Quote

Deadman wrote: It's sort of interesting: I assume (perhaps mistakenly, given the ambiguity of how Mr. Hunter has been posting) that he's essentially asking HOW do we assign traits/characters into homology and homoplasy categories. Can we justify our assumptions there? [...]

Well, here's the deal:

I would argue that what Mr. hunter is attempting to do --in his roundabout, ambiguity-laden way -- is to place ID and modern evolutionary theory on an "even playing field" by saying "both research programs are based on metaphysical and unfalsifiable assumptions."

The fact that he can't come out and say that is amusing to me.

Well I'm glad to see that this thread has served a useful purpose. I was beginning to despair that I might have been wasting my time. But no, I'm not asking "HOW do we assign traits/characters into homology and homoplasy categories"? I'm plenty familiar with these struggles. Nor am I attempting to mischaracterize ID, as you suggest.

Quote

Deadman wrote: In the past, prior to the genetic revolution and evo-devo studies, yep, there was a lot more seeming arbitrariness in placing things into "homology v. homoplasy" categories. But even a cursory scan of the relevant literature today has yielded me a bounty of information on the very topic...in just ten minutes, I gathered these papers:

Now, I have no particular interest in this area ....

Apparently not, otherwise you wouldn't be appealing to the genetic revolution.

Quote

Deadman wrote: When asked what specific characters Mr. Hunter finds "equal and greater in similarity" to pentadactyly...Mr Hunter has yet to respond. I would wager that what Mr. Hunter will present is not a single character, but rather a suite of characters, i.e. they look alike in teeth, skull shape, quadrupedal body form, etc. Is there a term for this sort of fallacy in comparing one to many?

Arrggh!! You have anticipated my next move. I was amassing a mammoth list (I'm on page 167, single-spaced) of incredible similarities. But of course, it is all a grand fallacy. The dreaded one-to-many fallacy, as you point out. How foolish to think that anything could stand up to the bat versus horse limb similarity:

One can easily see that they must share a common ancestor. What powerful evidence!

Quote

N. Wells wrote: There do seem to be features in organisms that, when we look at them, we think, "wow, even I could have designed that better", so we do make some intuitive arguments along these lines. The recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffes is a good example here.

However, there is much more substance and depth to these sorts of arguments than CH admits. First, we know that better designs are possible because they exist in other organisms. Giraffe necks are made out of the same seven neck vertebrae that we have, but this is only a constraint due to evolutionary history: hummingbirds (not being mammals) have 14 neck verterbrae. In a world that contains squirrels and monkeys, you don’t have to be either a genius or a metaphysical philosopher to realize that tree kangaroos are not the epitome of adaptation to life in trees. There are many similar examples, although few are quite so comical. This is an evidence-based conclusion.

Yes, agreed. I did not mean to say there is no reasonable evidence for functionally non optimal biological designs. My comments were directed at the pentadactyl pattern. Given the substantial differences between the horse and bat limbs, for instance, and given that we've never built a horse or a bat, it seems that it would be difficult for us to be certain that those designs are substantially inefficient.

Quote

N. Wells wrote: Secondly, claims about ‘what biological designs ought to be like’ only get made in the most obvious of cases (like the giraffe's nerve, above). The argument tends not to be how wings ought to work for birds or for bats, nor whether the basic tetrapod forelimb and its modifications work better for bats or for birds, but that all birds possess one version of the basic tetrapod forelimb, whereas all bats possess a different version. The easiest explanation, given substantial overlaps in function between bird wings and bat wings, is that one set of solutions happened in some ancestral bird and has been inherited by all subsequent birds, whereas a different set of solutions happened in some bat ancestor and has since been inherited by all bats. Similarly, but at another level, the commonalities in all tetrapod limbs are best explained by common inheritance.

Easiest explanation? Best explained? That would be a difficult position to defend, particularly given its enormous scientific problems. Be that as it may, my point in this thread is to ask the question: why are homologies such a powerful evidence? Your answer seems to be that in your opinion evolution is the best explanation. I can imagine several possible reasons why one might hold that opinion. There's one that is subjective. Another is metaphysical, and another is circular. Perhaps your reasoning escapes these problems. But as it stands, explanations such as yours above fails to show why the homologies are such powerful evidence.

Quote

N. Wells wrote: CH initially claimed that convergence is a big problem at high taxonomic levels (as between thylacines and wolves), when it is not so much, and that biologists ignore convergence, when they study it with great care and considerable interest.

I did not claim that "convergence is a big problem at high taxonomic levels." I used it as an example of one of the many problems with the "homology is powerful evidence" claim. Nor did I say that biologists ignore convergence.

Quote

Mike PSS writes: First, the evolutionary claim is made that pentadactyl pattern found within mammals is the result of common descent. You do know that this means the common ancestor of mammals had pentadactyl pattern limbs. And that this trait is carried by ALL mammals.

You are confusing observations with predictions. I was merely pointing out that evolution does not maintain that the pentadactyl pattern must be carried by all mammals or, by extension, that homologies must be present in all species in a lineage (otherwise evolution would have been falsified long ago).

Quote

Mike PSS writes: I beg to differ with your conclusion here based on Theobold's quote. You better parse or reference Theobold a little bit better to fit your conclusion you just made. In fact I think the next paragraph you quoted (but didn't include) from the Theobold paper actually gives Theobold's answer to his "puzzling" statement. Context in quoted phrases is important.

I was quoting from Theobald's post.

Quote

Mike PSS writes:

Quote

A second problem is that the claim is not scientific. Regardless of whether or not homologies such as the pentadactyl pattern are inefficient, this claim entails an "ought" premise. That is, the argument entails a premise about what biological designs ought to be like. This is metaphysical, and it makes the evidential claim impenetrable and outside of science, for one cannot use science to address opinions about what ought to be. One cannot argue against the metaphysical beliefs of evolutionists.

I don't see how your making this metaconclusion from the evolutionary claim for pentadactyl limbs (common descent). Please explain in some more detail how saying "common descent" as an answer can lead you to believe there is some "ought premise" put forward. I'm confused with this response.

The problem is that you have diluted the evolutionary claim to make it defensible. The evolutionary claim is not merely "saying 'common descent' as an answer." If that were the case there would be no problem. But the evolutionary claim is that homologies such as the pentadactyl pattern make evolution compelling. This is supposed to be powerful evidence. Look here:

Do you seriously expect anyone, except for evolutionists, to find this convincing? People just roll their eyes at this stuff. I suggest you come up with something better than "we're puzzled by this so it is powerful evidence for evolution."

Not quite as well known as the "Joseph Goebbels shuffle" distract the hoi poloi with the old three card shuffle and If you are going to tell a lie make sure its a big one

So whats in your hand behind your back C.H. ?

The answers to Lenny's questions?

--------------The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

Mr. Hunter, you have a very nice circular scheme going on here to sell your snake oil, congratulations.

Let's examine it: 1. You arrive and say

Quote

How is it that similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern are such powerful evidence for evolution, in light of equala and greater levels of similarity in distant species, such as dsplayed in the marsupial and placental wolves?

2. You steadfastly refuse to state what SPECIFIC characters you are referring to and wish to compare to pentadactyly. (I challenge you to cite where you have mentioned any specific characters in thylacines/wolves).Instead, you point to cartoon images and say "see?"

3. When you are offered paleontological, genetic and comparative anatomy data, you reject it, claiming that it is "theory-laden" and somehow this negates the data itself.

4. Having effectively denied the existence of evidence supporting common inheritance of structural ( pentadactyl) characters, you then;

Mr. Hunter, you have a very nice circular scheme going on here to sell your snake oil, congratulations.

Let's examine it: 1. You arrive and say

Quote

How is it that similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern are such powerful evidence for evolution, in light of equala and greater levels of similarity in distant species, such as dsplayed in the marsupial and placental wolves?

2. You steadfastly refuse to state what SPECIFIC characters you are referring to and wish to compare to pentadactyly. (I challenge you to cite where you have mentioned any specific characters in thylacines/wolves).Instead, you point to cartoon images and say "see?"

3. When you are offered paleontological, genetic and comparative anatomy data, you reject it, claiming that it is "theory-laden" and somehow this negates the data itself.

4. Having effectively denied the existence of evidence supporting common inheritance of structural ( pentadactyl) characters, you then;

5. Repeat #1.

Very cute, sir!

Cute in a 4 year old.

Discombobulated in a Post Doc.

Tell me C.H. do you have dreams of standing naked at bus stops?

--------------The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

If ID is not creationism, then (1) what is this "traditional doctrine of creation" that DI wants Christian churches to defend, and (2) why does DI want churches to defend it?

Or is DI just lying to us (under oath) when it claims ID isn't creationism.

IDers complain a lot about evolution's "materialism". What, precisely, about “evolution” is any more “materialistic” than, say, weather forecasting or accident investigation or medicine? Please be as specific as possible.

I have never, in all my life, ever heard any weather forecaster mention “god” or "divine will” or any “supernatural” anything, at all. Ever. Does this mean, in your view, that weather forecasting is atheistic?

I have yet, in all my 46 years of living, to ever hear any accident investigator declare solemnly at the scene of an airplane crash, “We can’t explain how it happened, so an Unknown Intelligent Being must have dunnit.” I have never yet heard an accident investigator say that “this crash has no materialistic causes — it must have been the Will of Allah”. Does this mean, in your view, that accident investigation is atheistic?

How about medicine. When you get sick, do you ask your doctor to abandon his “materialistic biases” and to investigate possible “supernatural” or “non-materialistic” causes for your disease? Or do you ask your doctor to cure your naturalistic materialistic diseases by using naturalistic materialistic antibiotics to kill your naturalistic materialistic germs?

Since it seems to me as if weather forecasting, accident investigation, and medicine are every bit, in every sense,just as utterly completely totally absolutely one-thousand-percent “materialistic” as evolutionary biology is, why, specifically, is it just evolutionary biology that gets your panties all in a bunch? Why aren’t you and your fellow Wedge-ites out there fighting the good fight against godless materialistic naturalistic weather forecasting, or medicine, or accident investigation?

Or does that all come LATER, as part of, uh, “renewing our culture” … . . ?

Do you repudiate the extremist Reconstructionist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson? If so, why do you keep taking his money anyway?

For extra credit, you can tell us:

(1) what is it, specifically, that you think the designer did?(2) what mechanisms do you think the designer used to do . . . well . . . whatever the heck you think it did?, and(3) where can we see the designer using these mechanisms today to do . . . well . . . anything?

Mr. Hunter: A few additional thoughts. Note that I have given responses to your questions and that I would hope that fairness and honesty in debate would compel you to respond to the questions of others directly.

1 .Isn't the very claim that "theory-laden" observations are somehow "less than" or inferior to "theory-UNladen" observations...itself a theory-laden hypothesis? How does your view qualify as "better?" when it is also laden with theory? If you assert it is not "theory-laden", can you please explain your association with DI?

2. How did you determine that characters were "equal or greater " in similarity when there are no justifications at all ( in your mind) of making such a claim? Was it due to "theory-laden" observations? On this point, I'd also like you to show me an example of scientific observation that is not theory-laden.

3. You have steadfastly refused even up to now, to simply enumerate what these characters ARE that you wish to compare to pentadactyly . When you did mention the patagium in Phalangers/Flying Squirrels, you seemed to ignore the evidence that shows that there is very little underlying structural similarity in the two adaptations other than "skin stretched between fore- and hindfeet." which doesn't have the same weight as pentadactyly that can be seen in all mammals today, in the fossil record of mammals and beyond and that has relatively well-known genetic and developmental evidence -- all of which you will of course, "invalidate" by saying it is "theory laden"

4. Varying degrees of subjectivity and falsifiability are different things, sir. I suggest you learn what falisifiability is before you go equating the two. Falsifiability, in Popper's terms, primarily involves conceiving of a statement/observation that would negate claim X. Many "subjective" claims can be falsified. If, for instance, a person claims that theory-laden observations are inferior to those observations done without such theoretical "baggage," then this is an undemonstrated subjective claim. Such a claim can be falsified by pointing to observations that are "theory-laden" ( such as evolutionary theory) and showing that the observations in question are the best-supported we have, in addition to fulfilling other criteria such as testability, repeatability, etc. Conversely, I don't know of any other "theory-laden" observations that provide the breadth and depth of explanatory and predictive value that evolutionary theory has in regard to observations such as the fossil record and it's interrelations to comparative anatomical observations and genetic/evo-devo. These facts run counter to your subjective view of " inferior theory-laden" observations (beyond the fact that you have yet to even demonstrate that "theory-unladen" scientific observations even exist at all...much less the notion of "unladen" observations in general) Got it?

I would argue that what Mr. hunter is attempting to do --in his roundabout, ambiguity-laden way -- is to place ID and modern evolutionary theory on an "even playing field" by saying "both research programs are based on metaphysical and unfalsifiable assumptions."

The fact that he can't come out and say that is amusing to me.

Quote

Well I'm glad to see that this thread has served a useful purpose. I was beginning to despair that I might have been wasting my time. But no, I'm not asking "HOW do we assign traits/characters into homology and homoplasy categories"? I'm plenty familiar with these struggles. Nor am I attempting to mischaracterize ID, as you suggest.

So you agree, Cornelius, that ID is sufficiently characterized as a "research program... based on metaphysical and unfalsifiable assumptions?" Since you didn't want to mischaracterize it.

Quote

Easiest explanation? Best explained? That would be a difficult position to defend, particularly given its enormous scientific problems. Be that as it may, my point in this thread is to ask the question: why are homologies such a powerful evidence? Your answer seems to be that in your opinion evolution is the best explanation. I can imagine several possible reasons why one might hold that opinion. There's one that is subjective. Another is metaphysical, and another is circular. Perhaps your reasoning escapes these problems. But as it stands, explanations such as yours above fails to show why the homologies are such powerful evidence.

It is solid evidence in the context of all other evidence.

All you are doing Cornelius is to make the common descent vs. common design argument over and over and over. Sorry that I'm not providing a dissertation in this comment box, but when all available evidence is taken into account common descent is the better of the two explanations.

Quote

The evolutionary claim is not merely "saying 'common descent' as an answer." If that were the case there would be no problem. But the evolutionary claim is that homologies such as the pentadactyl pattern make evolution compelling.

I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. Please re-read your own statements. You obviously have a problem with common descent, then you say that common descent is no problem. You say that the evolutionary claim is that homology is evidence of common descent, then you say that this is not the case, that the evolutionary claim is that homology must be "compelling" evidence. I think you should seriously consider running for public office. I think you'd do well.

Mr. Hunter,I can't quite accuse you of obfuscation (yet). You responded (thank you) BUT you didn't quite capture everything that I was saying. That makes your responses either incomplete in reasoning or incorrect in conclusions.

Quote (Cornelius Hunter @ Feb. 02 2007,03:50)

Quote

Mike PSS writes: First, the evolutionary claim is made that pentadactyl pattern found within mammals is the result of common descent. You do know that this means the common ancestor of mammals had pentadactyl pattern limbs. And that this trait is carried by ALL mammals.

You are confusing observations with predictions. I was merely pointing out that evolution does not maintain that the pentadactyl pattern must be carried by all mammals or, by extension, that homologies must be present in all species in a lineage (otherwise evolution would have been falsified long ago).

No you were not. You were using the pentadactyl pattern as supporting data to your argument. ANY statements made specifically about pentadactyl patterns must hold true to the facts UNLESS you clarify your point. You stated that "It {pentadactyl pattern} need not be carried by all mammals." That is incorrect for the reasons I pointed out. To correctly answer without confusing the subject you could easily have stated the more general observation about homologous structures. But you chose pentadactyl and that is what I countered.

Also, it seems you understand the point about nested hierarchies as a structure to map out homologies but don't accept the concept. The Wiki page you reference has a lot of pictures of the pentadactyl pattern, and ALL of the creatures pictured happen to fit within the "pentadactyl nested hierarchy". If you don't understand what this means then we can get into more detail about the evolutionary claims related to nested hierarchies. We could then create a picture map of "placenta nested hierarchies" and "marsupial nested hierarchies". But I think what your missing in this whole structure is the basic tree of life structure that the evolutionary claim has created.

When any of the above hierarchies are mapped onto the tree of life you will see a single source point for the claimed structure and every creature below that point will have homology with that claimed structure. The homology map of the structure will not travel upward, or to other branches or twigs.

So let's be a bit less semantic and a bit more factual in the claims and comments. The evolutionary claim is clear with supporting points both within biology and external to show that a nested hierarchy of the pentadactyl limb is strong evidence of common descent supported by the nested hierarchy that was created by factual analysis of present day animals (biology), fossils (paleontology), limb analysis (physiology), limb function (biology/physics), and many other data points.

Quote

Quote

Mike PSS writes: I beg to differ with your conclusion here based on Theobold's quote. You better parse or reference Theobold a little bit better to fit your conclusion you just made. In fact I think the next paragraph you quoted (but didn't include) from the Theobold paper actually gives Theobold's answer to his "puzzling" statement. Context in quoted phrases is important.

I was quoting from Theobald's post.

I stated that you made a strawman argument based upon what I thought was either a misinterpretation or misapplication of what Theobald said. In other words you were using a selective quote AND a faulty conclusion without providing contextual support from Theobald. Give the board the whole Theobald article, or the context around the quote and we'll see more clearly whether your conclusions fit the quote.

Specifically I would like to see if Theobald's use of the term "puzzled" fits your interpretation and subsequent claim of the term "puzzled". THAT is why I need more information.

Quote

Quote

Mike PSS writes:

Quote

A second problem is that the claim is not scientific. Regardless of whether or not homologies such as the pentadactyl pattern are inefficient, this claim entails an "ought" premise. That is, the argument entails a premise about what biological designs ought to be like. This is metaphysical, and it makes the evidential claim impenetrable and outside of science, for one cannot use science to address opinions about what ought to be. One cannot argue against the metaphysical beliefs of evolutionists.

I don't see how your making this metaconclusion from the evolutionary claim for pentadactyl limbs (common descent). Please explain in some more detail how saying "common descent" as an answer can lead you to believe there is some "ought premise" put forward. I'm confused with this response.

The problem is that you have diluted the evolutionary claim to make it defensible. The evolutionary claim is not merely "saying 'common descent' as an answer." If that were the case there would be no problem. But the evolutionary claim is that homologies such as the pentadactyl pattern make evolution compelling. This is supposed to be powerful evidence. Look here:

Do you seriously expect anyone, except for evolutionists, to find this convincing? People just roll their eyes at this stuff. I suggest you come up with something better than "we're puzzled by this so it is powerful evidence for evolution."

Thanks for clarifying.My answer is contained in my responses above relating to the tree of life. There is a lot more information behind the answer "Common Descent". Maybe in my answers I'll have to assume the questioner has NO knowledge of the theory of evolution. That way I can explain (like I did above) that there is a structure, with supporting data, that exists to support the "Common Descent" conclusion. Because contained within this structure is NON-CONTRADICTORY evidence based upon the interpretation of data within an evolutionary framework. The FACT that ALL the data acquired before and since FITS THE THEORY is where the claim of powerful evidence for evolution comes from.

Do I really need to explain this to you?Or are you really saying that evolutionists are not good salespeople with the theory?

GoP, if there was any reasonable hope that this guy was going to come back and get specific, then I might have joined your appeal to CH that he not precipitately "abandon" (horrors!) our little board...

But, despite your heavy hint--and the explicit requests from several others--that he come back and tell us in plain English what characters he's talking about and how he thinks these non-nested homologies do or don't challenge the powerfully-compelling nested hierarchies of common descent, Mr. Hunter instead took several days to mull things over but still came back with nothing the predictable handwaving vagaries and vapors.

Leaving any number of very pointed and trenchant questions unanswered. The guy gives every indication of being a rather run-of-the-mill sort of maroon, and not even a very interesting or entertaining one.

Do you repudiate the extremist Reconstructionist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson?

It occurs to me that there might be some newbie lurkers out there who haven't heard about Mr Ahmanson. So I offer:

The most militant of the Ayatollah-wanna-be's are the members of the "Reconstructionist" movement. The Reconstructionists were founded by Rouas J. Rushdoony, a militant fundamentalist who was instrumental in getting Henry Morris's book The Genesis Flood published in 1961. According to Rushdoony's view, the United States should be directly transformed into a theocracy in which the fundamentalists would rule directly according to the will of God. "There can be no separation of Church and State," Rushdoony declares. (cited in Marty and Appleby 1991, p. 51) "Christians," a Reconstructionist pamphlet declares, "are called upon by God to exercise dominion." (cited in Marty and Appleby 1991, p. 50) The Reconstructionists propose doing away with the US Constitution and laws, and instead ruling directly according to the laws of God as set out in the Bible---they advocate a return to judicial punishment for religious crimes such as blasphemy or violating the Sabbath, as well as a return to such Biblically-approved punishments as stoning.

According to Rushdoony, the Second Coming of Christ can only happen after the "Godly" have taken over the earth and constructed the Kingdom of Heaven here: "The dominion that Adam first received and then lost by his Fall will be restored to redeemed Man. God's People will then have a long reign over the entire earth, after which, when all enemies have been put under Christ's feet, the end shall come." (cited in Diamond, 1989, p. 139) "Christian Reconstructionism," another pamphlet says, "is a call to the Church to awaken to its Biblical responsibility to subdue the earth for the glory of God . . . Christian Reconstructionism therefore looks for and works for the rebuilding of the institutions of society according to a Biblical blueprint." (cited in Diamond 1989, p. 136) In the Reconstructionist view, evolution is one of the "enemies" which must be "put under Christ's feet" if the godly are to subdue the earth for the glory of God.

In effect, the Reconstructionists are the "Christian" equivilent of the Taliban.

While some members of both the fundamentalist and creationist movements view the Reconstructionists as somewhat kooky, many of them have had nice things to say about Rushdoony and his followers. ICR has had close ties with Reconstructionists. Rushdoony was one of the financial backers for Henry Morris's first book, "The Genesis Flood", and Morris's son John was a co-signer of several documents produced by the Coalition On Revival, a reconstructionist coalition founded in 1984. ICR star debater Duane Gish was a member of COR's Steering Committee, as was Richard Bliss, who served as ICR's "curriculum director" until his death. Gish and Bliss were both co-signers of the COR documents "A Manifesto for the Christian Church" (COR, July 1986), and the "Forty-Two Articles of the Essentials of a Christian Worldview" (COR,1989), which declares, "We affirm that the laws of man must be based upon the laws of God. We deny that the laws of man have any inherent authority of their own or that their ultimate authority is rightly derived from or created by man." ("Forty-Two Essentials, 1989, p. 8).

The Discovery Institute, the chief cheerleader for "intelligent design theory", is particularly cozy with the Reconstructionists. The single biggest source of money for the Discovery Institute is Howard Ahmanson, a California savings-and-loan bigwig. Ahmanson's gift of $1.5 million was the original seed money to organize the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture, the arm of the Discovery Institute which focuses on promoting "intelligent design theory" (other branches of Discovery Institute are focused on areas like urban transportation, Social Security "reform", and (anti) environmentalist organizing).

Ahmanson is a Christian Reconstructionist who was long associated with Rushdooney, and who sat with him on the board of directors of the Chalcedon Foundation -- a major Reconstructionist think-tank -- for over 20 years, and donated over $700,000 to the Reconstructionists. Just as Rushdooney was a prime moving force behind Morris's first book, "The Genesis Flood", intelligent design "theorist" Phillip Johnson dedicated his book "Defeating Darwinism" to "Howard and Roberta" -- Ahmanson and his wife. Ahmanson was quoted in newspaper accounts as saying, "My purpose is total integration of Biblical law into our lives."

Ahmanson has given several million dollars over the past few years to anti-evolution groups (including Discovery Institute), as well as anti-gay groups, "Christian" political candidates, and funding efforts to split the Episcopalian Church over its willingness to ordain gay ministers and to other groups which oppose the minimum wage. He was also a major funder of the recent "recall" effort in California which led to the election of Terminator Arnie. Ahmanson is also a major funder of the effort for computerized voting, and he and several other prominent Reconstructionists have close ties with Diebold, the company that manufactures the computerized voting machines used. There has been some criticism of Diebold because it refuses to make the source code of its voting machine software available for scrutiny, and its software does not allow anyone to track voting after it is done (no way to confirm accuracy of the machine).

Some of Ahmanson's donations are channeled through the Fieldstead Foundation, which is a subspecies of the Ahmanson foundation "Fieldstead" is Ahmanson's middle name). The Fieldstead Foundation funds many of the travelling and speaking expenses of the DI's shining stars.

Ahmanson's gift of $1.5 million was the original seed money to organize the Center for Science and Culture, the arm of the Discovery Institute which focuses on promoting "intelligent design theory". By his own reckoning, Ahmanson gives more of his money to the DI than to any other poilitically active group -- only a museum trust in his wife's hometown in Iowa and a Bible college in New Jersey get more. In 2004, he reportedly gave the Center another $2.8 million. He sits on the Board Directors of Discovery Institute.

Since then, as his views have become more widely known, Ahmanson has tried to backpeddle and present a kinder, gentler image of himself. However, his views are still so extremist that politicians have returned campaign contributions from Ahmanson once they learned who he was.

So it's no wonder that the Discovery Institute is reluctant to talk about the funding source for its Intelligent Design campaign. Apparently, they are not very anxious to have the public know that most of its money comes from just one whacko billionnaire who has long advocated a political program that is very similar to that of the Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran.

And now that everyone knows the sort of company that Doc Hunter keeps, maybe NOW he will . . . uh . . . answer my #### questions.

thanks, that bit on Ahmanson was exactly the kind of thing I love you for.

I couldn't agree more Ichthyic.

10/10 for idiot grinding.

Dr.C.H. and the rest of them can run but they can't hide the fact they are tied up with the worst possible scum imaginable.

I don't have the slightest sympathy for them.

--------------The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

Stephen Elliott wrote: You talk a lot but fail to answer basic questions. Answer Lenny (his questions are pretty basic) or admit you have nothing to say.

Why is it that I'm supposed to answer Lenny's questions but not vice-versa?

Quote

Deadman wrote: 1 .Isn't the very claim that "theory-laden" observations are somehow "less than" or inferior to "theory-UNladen" observations...itself a theory-laden hypothesis? How does your view qualify as "better?" when it is also laden with theory?

Please be careful. My point was merely that you'll have a difficult time persuading people that the evidence powerfully supports your theory, if you are interpreting observations accoring to the theory. Let's go back to your point and I'll try to do a better job of explaining the problem:

Quote

Deadman wrote: Let’s concentrate on the specific question: “How is it that similarities such as the pentadactyl pattern are such powerful evidence for evolution, in light of equal and greater levels of similarity in distant species, such as displayed in the marsupial and placental mouse?” First, this question is misphrased. The important thing about the forelimbs of birds, bats, dogs, pterosaurs, pigs, moles, anteaters, dolphins, and so forth is that their differences overwhelm their similarities, but their similarities are deeper and are the result of common inheritance. In contrast, their similarities are in many ways far less than the similarities between golden moles and marsupial moles or between ‘flying’ squirrels and ‘flying’ phalangers, but the latter similarities are superficial and are appear not to have resulted from shared inheritance. Both sets of comparisons and contrasts provide powerful evidence for evolution.

You are preaching to the choir. The reasoning here is circular because you are interpreting the evidence according to the theory of evolution, and then claiming it powerfully supports evolution. It makes little sense to explain that homologies such as the pentadactyl pattern are powerful evidence for evolution because, after all, such similarities are "deeper and are the result of common inheritance," whereas those other similarities "are superficial and are appear not to have resulted from shared inheritance." What you need to do is explain why some similarities are "deeper" and others are "superficial."

Quote

Deadman wrote: 3. You have steadfastly refused even up to now, to simply enumerate what these characters ARE that you wish to compare to pentadactyly . When you did mention the patagium in Phalangers/Flying Squirrels, you seemed to ignore the evidence that shows that there is very little underlying structural similarity in the two adaptations other than "skin stretched between fore- and hindfeet." which doesn't have the same weight as pentadactyly that can be seen in all mammals today, in the fossil record of mammals and beyond and that has relatively well-known genetic and developmental evidence -- all of which you will of course, "invalidate" by saying it is "theory laden"

Deadman, you are beating a dead horse. We've already compared the pentadactyl pattern with the skin stretched between the fore and hindfeet of the phalanger and flying squirrel. Your answer was that skin is easier to evolve than bones (wasn't that you?). That was sufficient for me. I do not need to multiply examples, for this one is subjective, circular, and clearly shows the weakness of the claim.

Quote

phonon wrote:

Quote

Easiest explanation? Best explained? That would be a difficult position to defend, particularly given its enormous scientific problems ... explanations such as yours above fail to show why the homologies are such powerful evidence.

It is solid evidence in the context of all other evidence.

So you agree that homologies, on their own, are not powerful evidence for evolution? Because it is not the only so-called "powerful" evidence with problems.

Quote

Mike PSS wrote: You stated that "It {pentadactyl pattern} need not be carried by all mammals." That is incorrect for the reasons I pointed out.

Actually, my statement was correct. Evolution does not require the pattern to be carried by all mammals.

Quote

Mike PSS wrote:

Quote

I was quoting from Theobald's post.

I stated that you made a strawman argument based upon what I thought was either a misinterpretation or misapplication of what Theobald said. In other words you were using a selective quote AND a faulty conclusion without providing contextual support from Theobald. Give the board the whole Theobald article, or the context around the quote and we'll see more clearly whether your conclusions fit the quote.

Here is the entire Theobald post:

Quote

Theobald wrote: The difference is simple. In one case we have structural similarity that has a functional explanation (wolves). In the other case, we have the much more puzzling phenomenon of structural similarity in spite of functional diversity (pentadactyl limbs). This latter problem is what common ancestry explains, quite elegantly. Hence it is this latter type of similarity that is evidence for evolutionary homology.

Evolutionists are puzzled by the phenomenon of structural similarity in spite of functional diversity so therefore it is powerful evidence for evolution?!? I wonder how you think you are going to persuade scientists with arguments like this.

Quote

Mike PSS wrote: The FACT that ALL the data acquired before and since FITS THE THEORY is where the claim of powerful evidence for evolution comes from.

This erroneous claim is unfortunately typical. In science, the evidence supporting a theory is important, but the evidence against a theory is also important. In fact, often times things get a lot more interesting when one investigates the latter. We ought not ignore the contrary evidences, or force-fit them. For some reason, however, evolutionists consistently make the bizarre claim that all the data ever acquired unambiguously fits their theory. They focus on one side of the story and ignore the other. I wonder why.

Why is it that I'm supposed to answer Lenny's questions but not vice-versa?

nyah nyah.

gees, one would think you could be the bigger man, if you felt your position so strong.

i guess you don't.

*shrug*

Quote

Please be careful. (nice bit of patronizing idiocy to start with a comment like that) My point was merely that you'll have a difficult time persuading people that the evidence powerfully supports your theory, if you are interpreting observations accoring to the theory.

totall and utter BS. it's like saying I show you a picture of a rock, and you say it's open to interpretation that it might be a bird instead, and make the assumption that just because everbody else thinks it's a rock, that doesn't make it so.

I'm sure there is a name for the logical fallacy you just pulled out of your ass there, but it escapes me at the moment.

your continued detailing of the "problem" just digs you in deeper, rather than elucidates any logical argument on your part.

Quote

Deadman, you are beating a dead horse.

no, he's not, as YOU are the one who keeps raising the issue in order to start your cycle of idiocy all over again.

hmm, not so much beating a dead horse, as a phoenix-from-the-ashes kind of thing on your part.

Quote

So you agree that homologies, on their own, are not powerful evidence for evolution?

that's not at all what he said. just stop it.

Quote

Evolution does not require the pattern to be carried by all mammals.

uh, just restating your eroneous conclusion does not make it so.

Quote

Evolutionists are puzzled by the phenomenon of structural similarity in spite of functional diversity so therefore it is powerful evidence for evolution?!?

no, idiot, he was describing the definition of homology as used in evolutionary theory, by showing which was an example of it, and which is not.

Quote

In science, the evidence supporting a theory is important, but the evidence against a theory is also important.

indeed it is, and when you come up with anything remotely credible, we will be able to discuss it intelligently.

you have yet to do so, however.

oh, almost forgot:

Billy repeats his request for you to either do some knife swallowing or jump through a flaming hoop.

If ID is not creationism, then (1) what is this "traditional doctrine of creation" that DI wants Christian churches to defend, and (2) why does DI want churches to defend it?

Or is DI just lying to us (under oath) when it claims ID isn't creationism.

IDers complain a lot about evolution's "materialism". What, precisely, about “evolution” is any more “materialistic” than, say, weather forecasting or accident investigation or medicine? Please be as specific as possible.

I have never, in all my life, ever heard any weather forecaster mention “god” or "divine will” or any “supernatural” anything, at all. Ever. Does this mean, in your view, that weather forecasting is atheistic?

I have yet, in all my 46 years of living, to ever hear any accident investigator declare solemnly at the scene of an airplane crash, “We can’t explain how it happened, so an Unknown Intelligent Being must have dunnit.” I have never yet heard an accident investigator say that “this crash has no materialistic causes — it must have been the Will of Allah”. Does this mean, in your view, that accident investigation is atheistic?

How about medicine. When you get sick, do you ask your doctor to abandon his “materialistic biases” and to investigate possible “supernatural” or “non-materialistic” causes for your disease? Or do you ask your doctor to cure your naturalistic materialistic diseases by using naturalistic materialistic antibiotics to kill your naturalistic materialistic germs?

Since it seems to me as if weather forecasting, accident investigation, and medicine are every bit, in every sense,just as utterly completely totally absolutely one-thousand-percent “materialistic” as evolutionary biology is, why, specifically, is it just evolutionary biology that gets your panties all in a bunch? Why aren’t you and your fellow Wedge-ites out there fighting the good fight against godless materialistic naturalistic weather forecasting, or medicine, or accident investigation?

Or does that all come LATER, as part of, uh, “renewing our culture” … . . ?

Do you repudiate the extremist Reconstructionist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson? If so, why do you keep taking his money anyway?

For extra credit, you can tell us:

(1) what is it, specifically, that you think the designer did?(2) what mechanisms do you think the designer used to do . . . well . . . whatever the heck you think it did?, and(3) where can we see the designer using these mechanisms today to do . . . well . . . anything?

As I said before, IDers ***NEVER*** answer my questions. None of them. Not Sal Cordova. Not Paul Nelson. Not you.

Considering we already know the answer and they know we know the answer you would think they would be running around making up all sorts of stories to cover those facts up.

Or shock horror admit they are a bunch of lying sleazebags and they were going to resign and change their ways like Haggard.

........Oh wait they're not Gay.

Bwhahahhahahahhahhahahahahahaha.

.....hey C.H. how do you feel when a Gay drug taking preacher who spent his parishners cash on his hobbies is more honest than you and homophobe Howard Ahmanson?

--------------The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

Theobald wrote: The difference is simple. In one case we have structural similarity that has a functional explanation (wolves). In the other case, we have the much more puzzling phenomenon of structural similarity in spite of functional diversity (pentadactyl limbs). This latter problem is what common ancestry explains, quite elegantly. Hence it is this latter type of similarity that is evidence for evolutionary homology.

Evolutionists are puzzled by the phenomenon of structural similarity in spite of functional diversity so therefore it is powerful evidence for evolution?!? I wonder how you think you are going to persuade scientists with arguments like this.

No, Theobald indicates that the similarity is superficially puzzling, but makes perfect sense if you consider common ancestry. You seem to have this exactly backwards.

And you never responded to my previous comment about structure vs. proportions. Maybe you missed it, so I'll try again. Look at dog breeds. They all share a basic dog structure, but the proportions of the structure can vary tremendously. So it seems far easier for differences in prportions to evolve than it is for differences in structure.

Seriously, dude, this should stuff should be pretty easy to understand. Maybe you should look into taking an intro bio course at a local community college or something.

--------------

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

This erroneous claim is unfortunately typical. In science, the evidence supporting a theory is important, but the evidence against a theory is also important. In fact, often times things get a lot more interesting when one investigates the latter. We ought not ignore the contrary evidences, or force-fit them. For some reason, however, evolutionists consistently make the bizarre claim that all the data ever acquired unambiguously fits their theory. They focus on one side of the story and ignore the other. I wonder why.

That would have been WAY more impressive if you had actually come up with examples of evidence against evolution.

--------------

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

(CH, addressing various people):Please be careful. My point was merely that you'll have a difficult time persuading people that the evidence powerfully supports your theory, if you are interpreting observations accoring to the theory. ......

The reasoning here is circular because you are interpreting the evidence according to the theory of evolution, and then claiming it powerfully supports evolution. It makes little sense to explain that homologies such as the pentadactyl pattern are powerful evidence for evolution because, after all, such similarities are "deeper and are the result of common inheritance," whereas those other similarities "are superficial and are appear not to have resulted from shared inheritance." What you need to do is explain why some similarities are "deeper" and others are "superficial.".....

We've already compared the pentadactyl pattern with the skin stretched between the fore and hindfeet of the phalanger and flying squirrel. Your answer was that skin is easier to evolve than bones (wasn't that you?). That was sufficient for me. I do not need to multiply examples, for this one is subjective, circular, and clearly shows the weakness of the claim.

CH,

I’m going to repeat some of what I said earlier, because I think I already answered your points. Theory holds and observations confirm that functionally important features are subject to considerable selective pressure, so we expect many overall similarities between unrelated organisms that are doing similar things. However, when similarities are arrived at through separate evolutionary histories, then we should also see significant differences within or underlying the grossly similar features, and most of those differences that are not brand new innovations should be consistent with features of the ancestral group rather than with features of the morphologically analogous group. Differences should be especially obvious in parts of the feature that aren't functionally important or which resolve a functional problem in substantially different ways.

The various forms of the vertebrate forelimbs are therefore important evidence for evolution because 1) they share fundamental similarities, 2) at the same time they fall into subsets that are characterized by shared differences (differences between the subgroups but shared within them), and 3) in both cases, the similarities and the differences are better explained by evolutionary history than by design.

A good specific example of this is bats, birds, and pterosaurs. They all fly and all have wings. In each of them, the wing is made of a scapula, one upper-arm bone (the humerus), and two lower-arm bones (the radius and the ulna). There is no particular reason to make a wing with those particular bones: insect wings work fine with no bones whatsoever, for example. If you were making wings for hovering (humingbirds), dynamic soaring (albatrosses, large pterosaurs), strong pumping flight (geese, sparrows), swimming (penguins), and waving around to impress potential mates (ostriches), it is unlikely that you would want to make wings out of the same basic components. (Since when are helicopters, submarines, sailplanes, and 747s constrained to utilize the same basic construction?)

However, underneath that unnecessary basic similarity, each group has a significantly different type of wing construction, with features that are unique to each group. Birds have feathers, alulas, & fusion of fingers 2 & 3; pterosaurs have pteroid bones and the tip of their wing is supported by an extremely long “little finger”, and bats have highly reduced ulnas, with four fingers stretching out to the tips of the wing. And again, many of the differences between the groups of fliers tie each type to their ancestral group rather than to other types of fliers (i.e., other functional groups): early birds had reptilian tails and teeth, and even modern birds lay reptilian eggs with chorion, allantois, and amnion membranes. Bats have fur and give milk. We see this pattern extending down into genetic and biochemical character traits, and it is also widespread (albeit with some notably complex and confusing exceptions) in the fossil records of the various groups.

The best evidence for homology is found when we see the same embryological tissues contribute to a feature in two different organisms, when the same genes are activated during the feature's construction, when the same developmental pathways are utilized, and when the same bones end up in much the same places in the same basic relationships to adjacent bones, nerves, blood vessels, and so forth. Then we can make a reasonably secure claim of homology. If we additionally have a fossil record that shows similar structures or a gradation of change in probable intermediates then the claim is that much stronger.